All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2016 - Radio Free Nortwest - H.A. Covington
01:01:26
20160218_rfn
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, tell me why you hurry so.
Hush-a-wooggle, hush and listen, and his cheeks were all aglow.
I bear orders from the captain, get you ready quick and soon, for the bikes must be together by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon, for the bikes must be together by the rising of the moon.
Oh, then tell me, Sean O 'Farrell, where the gathering is to be?
In the old spot by the river, rightful known to you and me.
One more roar for signal, token, whistle up and arching tune.
Warrior pie, grip on your shoulder by the rising of the moon.
By the rising of the moon, by the rising of the moon.
Which arrived upon your shore by the rising of the moon.
Out from many a mud wall cabin eyes were watching through the night.
Many a manly chest was throbbing for the blessed warning light.
The waters passed along the valleys like the man she's lonely crew.
And a thousand blades were flashing at the rising of the moon.
At the rising of the moon, at the rising of the moon.
And a thousand days were flashing out, rising all the blue.
It's February the 18th, 2016.
I'm Harold Covington, and this is Radio Free Northwest.
Hi, guys.
I know I've mentioned to you folks with reference to this program that one of my favorite phrases is, something has come up.
Well, guess what?
Yep, something has come up, which is going to throw off my routine and work schedule for yet another week.
Now, listening to me right now, you may be able to tell what that something is.
If you will pardon me a brief excursion into Grandpa Simpson territory, roughly every 18 months or so, I come down with a malady that I call lung burn, from the way that it makes my lungs feel.
I don't think it's the flu per se, just some kind of bronchitis or general crud.
I last had it in October of 2014 at a particularly crucial time in my life, when it was about as welcome as a pork pie in a synagogue.
So, I knew that I was coming due sometime soon, and last Friday, guess what?
Now, this seems to be some form of recurrent upper respiratory infection whose symptoms include not only burning in the lungs, but a sore throat and a gripping spasmodic cough, which I am editing out of here like mad, as well as some other more disgusting symptoms that I won't get into right here.
It doesn't appear to be fatal in that it hasn't...
It's just annoying as hell, although I recall that my last bout back in 14 hung on way too long, so the effects may be getting worse as I age.
Now, one end result of this sickness, which generally lasts a couple of weeks, is that when I speak out loud, I sound like death-eating a cracker, as I most likely do now.
The sore throat also makes it very difficult for me to speak for any length of time.
Now that the carnival down in Harney County, Oregon has finally concluded, in the very kind of ignominious end which I privately was predicting since it began, this week I was going to give you guys a big long oration about that latest episode of movement clownishness.
Well, I suppose it wasn't completely clownish, since the Northwest Republic did get one martyr out of it, like we really needed another one of those.
But since this was a major event which led to the shedding of blood, Although, as usual, not the shedding of their blood by us, and the destruction of our lives by them, as usual, I would rather not make a long, seminal presentation on this grimly serious topic in a voice that sounds like Pepe the Frog.
So, once more, I am going to have to knock some things together for the show.
I am feeling too crummy right now to apologize for this yet again, what can I tell ya?
It is what it is, and I will always do the best I can with what I'm given to work with.
Anyway, I'll see what I can dig up.
At any given time, I've got enough crap lying around on my hard drive to make up half a dozen shows.
To start off with, here's that piece from the trucker I wasn't able to squeeze in last week.
Westbound it down, 18 wheels are rolling.
We're going to do what they say can't be done.
We've got a long way to go, and it's short time to get there.
I'm Westbound just like a band that runs.
If you put hard on the pedal, some never mind them brakes.
Let it all hang out cause we gotta run the base.
No more.
Greetings, comrades.
This is the trucker coming at you from the homeland.
Just got home yesterday afternoon after being out since New Year's Eve.
Missed out on that lovely winter weather we had back there on the East Coast.
Broke my heart half and two about that.
And I was just online and see we've got another, pardon the pun, active shooter situation down in San Diego.
Don't know much about it.
It's still a breaking story at the moment.
But I keep seeing all this stuff going on over there in Europe and England and I know it's going to be coming here.
I hope we have the stones here to stand up against all these brown mud invaders that they've got coming over here.
The Aloha Snack Bar little bastards that need to be sent off to see Allah.
I'm sorry about over there in the EU and Britain and over there.
You don't have the firearm capabilities that we have.
Sitting here on my couch at the moment, I've got a.45 in my pocket.
One of them stays with me all the time.
Usually two, sometimes three of them if I'm out and about.
Am I paranoid?
No.
I just value my safety, which you should also.
So you need to get your situation wherever you may be where you can defend yourself against whatever comes along.
Be it white, black, brown, smelling like goat or camel, and be able to take the situation under control and dispatch the individual or individuals where they need to be.
So, I just thought I'd throw that out there, because, like I say, I don't plan on becoming a statistic, but if I end up having to be in that situation where I am forced to defend myself, I want to have something to defend myself with.
And also my family.
So, that's it from the trucker for this little segment.
So, hope to see you on the road to the homeland soon, comrades.
Either making your scouting trip or your migration.
Right now it's a rainy Tuesday morning out here in the Pacific Northwest.
So, trying to do stuff in the house instead of dodging raindrops.
But the rain is why they call it the evergreen state, or the ever-wet state, whichever, instead of down there in, like, California, whereas we wish we had some water state.
Alright, this is the trucker signing off, comrades.
Have a safe one.
Greetings, comrades.
This is the trucker coming at you from eastern Idaho on my way down to Tennessee with a load of seafood.
Well, if you haven't been paying attention, this is an election year, and it's also a leap year, which gives you an extra day this year.
So, I don't know what your political leanings are, but I know how you should be voting.
Every one of you should be voting with your feet and your wallet.
What do I mean by that?
Well, you should be doing your scouting trip and making preps to move to the homeland, and you should be voting with your wallet, in other words, making donations to the cause.
Like I say, I make a donation every month, and it's more than the $10, the measly little $10, shekels, whatever you want to classify it as, that Mr. Covington asked for.
So, that's another good resolution for the new year, is to go and vote the way you're supposed to this year.
Preferably next year, because who knows?
The way the canyon's doing things, there may not be a next year.
If he gets his way, he'll probably end up staying in office permanently.
That's just my thoughts on the matter, but...
So, the quicker we can get this moving, the better off we're all the...
So, I don't know what's holding you back, but you really need to get it together and re-evaluate your situation and make your scouting trip and make your move out here to the homeland.
That's the best vote that you can make.
Alright, well, this is the Trucker signing off from Eastern Idaho.
Take it easy.
Stay safe.
Might see you on the road.
You might see me on the road.
But, anyway, just see you in the homeland soon there, comrades.
All right, this is the trucker signing off.
We've got a long way to go.
Any short time to get there, I'm westbound just to watch a bandit run.
We've got a long way to go.
Thank you.
I'm not sure, but I think he's Canadian.
Hello.
I wanted to mention a couple of things on RFN that I found quite important.
I was watching a video linked to by Ramsey Paul in which a 16-year-old German girl was describing how she is afraid constantly.
Of walking down the street, of migrants staring at her, of all these rapes that are going on in Germany and across Europe.
She even described how in summer she was wearing a t-shirt and one of these people said, Allah could see you.
How dare you wear a t-shirt, you little whore.
Now if that's not oppression, I don't know what is.
Oppression, by definition, is the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles.
Adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.
Now, if this 16-year-old girl has the courage to overcome her oppression, to speak up about issues she finds important, then so should I, and so should you.
Now, how is a relatively peaceful person supposed to go about trying to avoid these people, to regain their freedom?
Now, short of going the Yugoslavia, all the gun fun route, here's what I had in mind.
Over 90% of Canada is owned by the national government.
Vast swores of the western United States are also owned by the United States government.
What if people by the tens of thousands were simply to walk into the forest and build up their homes out of the lands in the forest?
I was thinking recently, what if you were to fill an 8x8x20 foot shipping container full of all the goods someone would need to restart a life?
Say, in the middle of a forest.
Let's say you put a water collection system in there, lithium batteries, wind generators, solar panels, a metal kit house, a wood furnace, etc., etc.
You drive into the National Forest, you drop this shipping container off in a family of white refugees.
You allow them to build up their own home and develop it into what they would want it to be.
Now how would you gain resources?
How would you work?
For example, Alaska has over 15 trillion dollars worth of gold sitting in the vast Alaskan tundra, completely untapped.
What if you were to do illegally mining?
Illegal homesteading?
Freedom is illegal.
This is the most peaceful and the best solution I can come up with to how white people can regain their freedom.
Simply take it.
There's no need, in my opinion, to throw you the weight of your lies against some oppressive government.
The United States has proven time and time again they can throw tens of thousands of soldiers into battle and waste them for nothing.
For example, Vietnam.
They would go after the same stupid hill a dozen times and leave that hill while at the same time losing hundreds of men against nothing.
Like, it's nothing.
So these thousand good men that Harold is talking about would easily be wasted if they were to be, um, used for battle, for example.
Okay, I normally don't respond to people's contributions on specific points because a lot of times it sounds like I'm running them down and they get all butthurt and go off in a corner and sulk for a while.
And then they either disappear or else they start making posts on Stormfront or VNN calling me a Jew and an alcoholic Indian or whatever because I said something that hurt their feelings.
And that's our wee little movement all over.
Write or say something that implies that a certain individual is somewhat less than divine in his perfection, and you've got a lifelong blood feud on your hands with a middle-aged adolescent.
Anyway, let me make it clear that I am not trying to run down or humiliate this young man here.
We urgently need more people from his age group, otherwise we really would be nothing but a bunch of old white men bitching and moaning.
But sometimes I just gotta say something when our ideas begin to drift and somebody needs to try and steer them back on course and get them kitted out for the real world.
First question for young Aristotle.
That container of survival gear and MREs and water filtration systems and stuff you're talking about, plunking down in the wilderness, presumably one each per white migrant family.
Now that sounds like a very good idea, but one that would cost, at the very least, something well into five figures per unit.
Where is that money to pay for these units supposed to come from?
Who pays?
Guys, please remember.
Whenever you come to me pushing some idea like this, and people come to me pushing ideas every week, some of them very good ideas, in fact, things I'd love to do, but when you come to me in breathless enthusiasm, having had a revelation of vision,
and you're bursting to tell me exactly what I really should be doing, and exactly how I should be doing it, and how I'm just fucking it up to the max because I'm not doing it your way, Will you try to bear in mind that for every idea, good, bad, or indifferent, before it can actually be brought into being out here in the real world, somebody is going to have to open their checkbook for everything we do.
Someone always has to take money out of their pockets and their bank accounts and give it to me or give it to the NPA or if they don't trust me with the shekels because they think I'll drink it all up at the liquor store outside the res, then you purchase the goods and the services and make use of those goods and services yourself, which is fine with me.
But somebody always has to pay in the literal financial sense of the word.
Somebody has to take money out of their pocket and plunk it down on the table.
Really good ideas that offer not so much as a hint of how they are to be paid for are useless.
Secondly, I think Aristotle is making some overly generous assumptions as to how ready and able most Canadian American white people are to go off and live in the woods with only their water filtration system and possibly a volume of Rousseau's essays as company.
Look, kid, I really, really don't want to rain on your parade.
But we simply are not the men and damn sure not the women that our forefathers were.
The overwhelming majority of 21st century palefaces have no more idea how to pan for gold or build a log cabin or seriously hunt for food than they know how to fly.
Nor do they want to go running off into the woods.
They want to stay where they are and have everything done for them and handed to them on a silver platter.
What most white people want, Arima man, is for some guy on a white horse to ride up, flourish his saber aloft, and promise them salvation without risk and without inconvenience, if only they will cheer for him and vote for him and accept him as humongous, the Ayatollah rock and roller or whatever.
This is the whole secret behind the Donald Trump phenomenon.
Trump appeals to something very visceral in white people.
Our passionate desire to have it all done for us without any risk or inconvenience or danger.
Anyway, sorry dude, we have to play the cards we're dealt.
Okay, I've mentioned Rhodesia before, but you know that there were other white Africans elsewhere on the continent well north of the Zambezi?
I think at one stage there were almost 80,000 long-term first and second generation whites in Kenya, for example.
But far to the north, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there were almost a million French people living in Algeria.
They had begun settling the land when France acquired it in 1830, and some of them had been there for three or four generations.
After 1963, they were expelled from Algeria, all one million and change of them, which I think is a telling commentary on this liberal moan that we can't possibly expel huge populations of Muslim migrants from Europe or beaner illegals from this continent.
All 300,000 Rhodesians were expelled, those that weren't murdered, and a million French were relocated to France via air and sea over a period of less than a year.
Funny how when it's white people who are being kicked out of some place, all of a sudden mass population transfer is quite possible and a very viable option.
These French North African colonists were called pied-noir.
Which means Blackfeet, and many of them were active in the OAS and have been prominent in the French right wing to this day.
They have a kind of semi-political, semi-national anthem-type march, which you still hear sometimes at national front rallies and whatnot.
This is called Le Chant des Africains, The Song of the Africans.
Le Chant des Africains
Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains
Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le
Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le
Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le
Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains Le Chant des Africains A
our
our our our our our our our our our our
I'm referring to Professor Kevin MacDonald of the University of California, former psychology professor there.
He's retired now.
He's the author of a number of famous works on racial topics.
His name will be familiar to just about anybody who has internet.
He runs a website at Occidental Dissent, Occidental Observer, Occidental something.
There's about three or four of these Occidental websites, and I can't remember which ones they are.
Anyway, this is Dr. McDonald speaking about his first book, The Culture of Critique.
This is one of these audio files that just rocked up on my hard drive from somewhere.
I can't remember where it came from, and there's no notation on the file as to when this lecture or address was made, and I'm sorry for that, but hey, this is another example of that ferocious and ruthless Nazi efficiency that once made us the terror of the civilized world.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
This is too loud.
It's very nice to be here.
I like it.
This book was written in 1998, and this is actually the first time I've ever given a talk about it.
It's amazing.
It indicates how this book has not been well-received, you might say, in the academic world.
It's been sort of ignored.
It hasn't been refuted, but it has been ignored.
So what I want to do is to talk about how I conceptualized the strategy of this book.
Because the first problem that you have in dealing with a project like this is the obvious point.
The Jews are not monolithic.
There are a lot of Jews that have very different opinions about things.
Certainly not all Jews are psychoanalysts or not all Jews are in the Frankfurt School.
And so that's the first kind of objection.
That I get.
So the technique here, the argument basically is to find intellectual movements that are dominated by Jews.
And you have to, of course, document that.
No indication that all Jews are involved in these movements.
There's no indication that it could be conservative or liberal or radical, and you're not going to make any restrictions on what kinds of movements there are.
And you have to then determine whether these Jewish participants, that they have to identify as Jews.
I mean, they can't be someone who's, like, totally assimilated, has become a Protestant, and doesn't care about Judaism anymore.
And so they have to be strongly identified as Jews, and they have to think of their involvement in this movement as advancing Jewish interests.
That is to say, you have to document that the people involved take the Judaism very seriously, and that they see their involvement in these movements as advancing specific interests, such as ending anti-Semitism.
In fact, that's the most common issue.
And then what you have to do, which is also not very easy, is try to see how influential these movements were.
I mean, it's not impossible to do that.
There's an awful lot written say on the influence of psychoanalysis and the influence of the Frankfurt School and so on.
So it's not rocket science.
You can't do this kind of stuff.
And the point is that how influential this movement is is totally independent of what percentage of the Jewish population is involved in these movements.
And quite often, like with psychoanalysis or something like that, I'm sure there are quite a few Jews who have never heard of psychoanalysis or the Frankfurt School.
It's a very academic kind of thing.
You're going to find, you know, huge numbers of Jews have not ever heard of this.
They're not involved.
They don't know about it.
Can you still say it is a Jewish intellectual movement?
My argument is, yes, you can.
The question is, is it influential?
Are the people who are doing this, do they identify strongly as Jews?
Do they see their involvement in this as advancing Jewish interests?
And then, of course, you have to deal with the fact that there are non-Jews that are involved in these movements.
All these movements have had non-Jews, oftentimes in very prominent positions.
Oftentimes these non-Jews have appeared as spokesmen for these movements.
They're very common in psychoanalysis.
Ernest Jones, for example, became probably one of the most...
Well, most well-known psychoanalyst, and it wasn't really because of his accomplishments so much.
He was sort of a spokesman.
He was not a Jew, but he was sort of the face, or a face of psychoanalysis.
And then you also want to see how people responded to these movements.
Were these movements a source of anti-Semitism?
And, of course, it was the case.
The Frankfurt School was shut down by the National Socialists in Germany.
Psychoanalysis, similarly, got a lot of hostility from non-Jews in the 1920s and 1930s.
Certainly, there's a big involvement on the left by Jews, and that was also a source of anti-Semitism.
But anyway, all those things have to be documented.
You have to really do quite a bit of research to nail these things down.
One good example to understand the strategy is thinking about Zionism.
Zionism, there's no question that Zionism is a Jewish movement.
It's all about establishing a homeland.
In Israel and so on.
But the fact is most Jews were not Zionists, you know, prior to about 1948 when Israel was established.
So just the fact that most Jews were not Zionists doesn't mean that Zionism was a non-intellectual movement, a Jewish movement.
It always was a Jewish intellectual movement, a Jewish political movement.
And it's interesting that if you look at the response of the American Jewish Committee in the 1930s and the 1940s to the fact that there were so many Jews in radical, in these radical leftist movements, The point that they always made was that most Jews are not radicals.
But again, during the same period, they were very concerned to try to actually go into the Jewish community and convince Jews not to be radicals.
Why?
Because they knew that, in fact, communism or radicalism was a Jewish movement in the sense that most of them were Jews.
All these Jewish networks and so on.
That really was the deciding factor.
That's what made it a Jewish movement.
And so the point is that the American Jewish Committee was implicitly recognizing that statements that only a minority of Jews are radical may have been true, but were not relevant to these three points.
Jewish identification is compatible with or facilitates involvement in radicalism.
Jews constitute a predominant or necessary element in radical political movements or the influences on non-Jewish society resulting from Jewish predominance in these movements.
May be conceptualized as a consequence of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.
Again, the point is, the people involved are strongly identified as Jews, and they see this as advancing specific Jewish interests.
So, on the question of non-Jews who have participated in this, quite often it's just plain old self-interest.
I mean, obviously, it's been very common for African American black intellectuals.
To sign on to a lot of these fairly radical environmentalist movements.
There's no such thing as IQ or it's all culture.
There are no influences of the genes and so on.
And that's obviously in their interest.
They don't want to see a lack of accomplishment as a result of genetic influences.
They want to see it as a result of a racist white society.
So it fits with their own political agenda.
So it's quite often that you have these...
He's definitely a minority activist signing on to these intellectual movements that propose environmentalist explanations for everything, where genes are completely out of the picture, that kind of thing.
And also, it's a very good path to having a fine career, right?
That's one of the saddest parts.
When these various movements become dominant, it's much easier, shall we say, to have a career in the media or at the high level in the academic world.
Because you're on the right page with these guys.
One of the places I've noticed that is especially with the neocons.
This is a movement in American politics, very pro-Israel.
In fact, their whole agenda really is pro-Israel.
But it's very easy, if you are a neocon, to get a job on Fox News, because Fox News is entirely...
It's dominated by these people.
And so if you're not a Jew and you have ideas that are very compatible with theirs, if you go along with it, you can have a very good career.
Same with think tanks.
There are a lot of think tanks in Washington.
Very lucrative physicians, and they're spotting these kinds of things.
So people want to have a good career.
You know, that's certainly a good way to go.
And I think, actually, I think that quite a few of these people do believe it.
I mean, they have, it's sincere to say here, they've been indoctrinated.
I mean, quite often, in our society now, I'm sure it's true in Europe, from the very earliest days in school, kindergarten, first grade, we are constantly inundated with these ideas.
So it's not surprising that by the time people get out of college and so on, that they're going to be spouting these ideas, they're going to actually believe that there's no such thing as race, that IQ is just a racist concept, that genes have no influence, all cultures are equal, those kinds of things are absolutely...
We're commonly taught now in schools.
So it's not surprising that some of these people probably really believe what they are doing.
But anyway, the point is there are several very important reasons why non-Jewish are going to be attracted to these movements.
And there are also some movements that I think were, in a sense, Jewish or a strong Jewish involvement, but they were not really Jewish intellectual movements, as I have defined the term.
That is, something like theoretical physics, where you have a major involvement of people like Einstein and so on.
But it's not really aimed at advancing Jewish interests, as far as I can see.
In other words, whether or not the theory of relativity is correct does not really end anti-Semitism.
It's fairly irrelevant to it.
I mean, you could make some kind of long, convoluted argument, but I don't think that's really what's going on.
And the fact is, Einstein was a strong Zionist.
He was a very strongly identified Jew and all that.
He poses assimilation.
He says it's...
Contemplable form of mimicry and so on.
We prefer other Jews.
But that doesn't make this a Jewish intellectual movement because it really had nothing to do with Jewish interests.
So you have to nail down things like anti-Semitism, like exclusion from society, like the fact that the Jewish holidays are not celebrated or whatever it is that motivates people to participate in these movements.
So, again, my book was originally published in 1998.
But recently, there's a paper that came out, American Sociological Review.
Actually, the points that they make about successful intellectual movements are exactly what I was arguing in the cultural critique.
So I thought that what I'd do is to structure this lecture in terms of what they are saying.
Is this flosy and gross?
Frickle and gross.
I think it's...
I'm not sure that's right.
Anyway, yeah, curriculum grows.
So what they're saying is that all important intellectual movements had three ingredients.
The first is people in high-status positions having complaints against the current system.
So having a complaint.
And what complaint, obviously, has, you know, throughout the cultural critique, the main complaint is anti-Semitism.
So the first thing I'll do today is talk about the complaints.
That Jewish intellectuals have had.
The second point, also a very strong point from the culture of Hrithiq, is that his intellectual movements are cohesive and cooperative.
That is, they are on page with each other.
They cite each other, they promote each other's work, and that sort of thing.
So there's a lot of cooperation, ethnic networking, as we say.
And this network has access to prestigious outlets.
Our culture works in a top-down way.
It's the top institutions.
In America, you have institutions like Harvard, Yale, the Ivy League universities, prestigious media like The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and so on.
You have to get to the top level.
It goes top-down.
It doesn't go from some small, rural newspaper and go to the top.
It always goes top-down.
And so the point is to show that these intellectual movements had access to the most prestigious media and academic institutions in the society.
So again, this is a very recent theory.
I'm just trying to show that the cultural critique conforms very exactly to this theory.
So the first point of the theory is that Jewish intellectuals have a complaint.
And the main complaint has been anti-Semitism.
They have a so-called lacrimal view of Jewish history.
That Jewish history is one long playground, one long series of anti-Jewish incidents.
Jews in Europe have been repeatedly victimized.
And this is a very common view.
I think it pervades pretty much all Jewish intellectuals.
An example I'm giving here is a recent book from Norman Podhoris, Why Are Jews Liberal?
And here's a quote from me.
He says, regarding Christianity, and just a reminder here, this is the cross on the Danish flag.
It's a testament to the Christian past in this country.
Anyway, Padora says, If anything at all, to help future generations to forget.
In other words, this is a long historical memory at this point.
It is the case that modern Jewish generations have not forgotten, although Maharas is a contemporary thinker.
In the Enlightenment, Jews, people like Voltaire, had the idea that Jews should not be so tribal.
They should integrate, they should assimilate to the societies that they are within.
That they should renounce their tribal allegiances and accept being citizens in a state, which is basically an individualist state, free market, and sort of atomized individualism.
Here's a quote from Clermont Tonnerre, I guess, French National Assembly, during the time of the Revolution, that Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals.
The existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable.
But this is viewed as anti-Semitism because Jews have not forgotten their tribal allegiances.
Having tribal loyalties is absolutely central, which is the main point of the first book.
Okay, those of you below a certain age aren't going to get this one, especially since I pulled it off YouTube and you won't see the video that goes with it.
But what this is, is an evil karaoke number based on a song from an old Walt Disney movie called The Lady and the Tramp.
It's an animated dog flick, one of those that parents used to take their small children to see back in the 1950s before everybody had color TV.
Or any TV.
I'm not sure, but I think it might actually be the first movie I ever saw myself when I was very young.
that are Fantasia.
Fantasia.
G's if you please Assalamu Alaikum We are refugees if you don't please Aloha Ahmad Now we looking over our domicile If we like we'll rep your girls for quite a while
Do you see their women walking around the town?
These western whores!
We can grope them and walk free because we are brown The feminists will tell them to cover up then Because they care not for their girls We are refugees if you please.
We are refugees if you don't please.
Zimmy won't fight back.
Fuck because they are so cocked.
And they'll smile as they watch their wives get fucked.
Do you hear what I hear?
A pool nearby.
Where we find a jacuzzi, we can shit inside.
We will take your house, your bike, your country too.
Ten years more of this, there's nothing you can do!
What's going on down here?
Oh, merciful heavens!
How can you do this to these starving refugees?
Oh, that evil, racist, white trash bigot!
Attacking these poor, innocent angels!
I'm not going to be a good one.
Thank you.
Okay, that McDonald lecture was interesting, but it was a little dry.
So what I'm going to do now is we're going to drop in the last segment of that interview that I did with Daily Stormer and Radio Arians Sven Longshanks last January the 9th.
I think people forget just what an absolute pleasure it is to walk around shops and have every single one of them run by white people.
A lot of people have forgotten that.
It really does mean something, actually.
It actually makes going out shopping pleasant.
We should really get back to this, Harold.
Back to their questions here.
What are your thoughts on accepting Jews, mulattoes or queers into the Northwest Republic or nationalism in general?
Uh, no.
What you're referring to is called movement modernization.
Maybe this is a little conspiratorial on my part, but I honestly think that is something that has been inserted into our movement by some kind of cabal or whatever you want to call it.
Well, probably it was facilitated by the secret fudge packers.
The idea is that, well...
The threat of Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, Muslims.
It's all Muslims.
And never mind the Jews.
That's just paranoid, old-thinking, horrible right-wing fascism.
The Jews don't matter.
It's all Muslims, Muslims.
And the queer thing, oh, it doesn't matter what you do in bed so long as you...
What matters is what you do in the street.
And, of course, most people aren't doing anything in the street.
It's an excuse for so-called leaders to not have to come up to any kind of basic status.
As we as a people degenerate, we get degenerates as leaders.
What can I tell you?
There is one individual over there in Britain whom I will not name.
I, to this day, cannot understand why he was tolerated as long as he was.
He finally got run out of his particular organization, but I don't even think it was over his proclivities.
Anyway, no, my view of it is, okay, if we're going to accept Jews and queers as members and even as leaders, what's the point of any of it?
I mean, you know, why are we doing this?
I am told, again, without naming names and sticking my feet into situations I don't know anything about, that some of these modernizers over there with a certain well-known British dash...
would actually have campaign literature during elections, showing themselves proudly with their sons, daughters, and their mulatto grandchildren, and their daughters, black husbands, and all this sort of stuff, and a big family portrait.
I saw that once.
I don't know if it happened more than once, but that was enough for me.
If we're going to allow that kind of thing, why?
Why are we doing any of it?
We might as well just forget the whole thing, go down to the pub and get drunk.
Like the average white idiots do because, I mean, we're trying to create a better world here.
And buggery and misogynation and the Jews calling the shots from behind the scenes, that's what we got now.
It is not a better world.
That's the same world.
And I think a lot of it also, I think there is a violation on the part of the Jews to get, you know, white people to do their fighting for them again against their Muslim enemies.
Of course, now the Muslim enemies are turning on everybody.
Look, I understand the European attitude towards Muslims.
Over there in Europe, Muslims are the same as Mexicans here.
And now, of course, we're getting a Muslim problem since Obama abolished the border, and Iranians and Afghans and Iraqis and everything, weird things from the Middle East, just marching across the border, just along with the Salvadorians and the Guatemalans.
But, you know, again, if we're going to allow that kind of erosion of moral standards in our so-called nationalist organizations, why be a nationalist?
What makes us different from the flip of Tories?
The whole thing about being a nationalist is ethnicity.
It's race.
If you're from a different race, if you're a Jew or you're a mulatto, then you have no business being in nationalism.
And nationalism, where it's based on ethnicity and race, it's based on natural creation, natural order, what's right about the natural order, and sodomy is what's wrong.
It's going against the natural order.
So anything that goes against it, I think, has no business.
There was a reason that in the laws over here it was referred to as an unnatural act because it was against nature.
It puts a stop or interferes with the reproduction of the species, which is clearly against the natural order of things.
Nature wants each species to reproduce and to reproduce true to its own kind.
Otherwise...
We would not have been designed as we are.
And when we go against that, when we set up our own judgment against nature or against God or however you want to phrase it, we say, I know better than God or nature what my body is supposed to be used for, never mind what made me or why it made me or anything like that.
I know better, and therefore I'm going to do what I want to do and what God wants to do.
Actually, if we're going to allow that, what...
What difference is there between us and these sheep on the streets?
One of the, I think, prerequisites for anyone to claim moral or political or spiritual leadership in any cause or in any nation is that the people making that claim have to have a reasonable assertion that they are better.
And then the run-of-the-mill average dweeb, and that because of that, because they have certain superior qualities, they are entitled to lead, and they are entitled to tell other people what to do.
You can't do that if you're wallowing in the same pigsty that Joe Blow is wallowing in.
So, to answer your question, well, it's like Calvin Coolidge, you know, our famous president back in the 20s, he was a man of few words.
His wife had been sick and hadn't been able to go to church with him, so he went to church on his own.
And so Cal came home and visited his wife.
And his wife said, well, Cal, what did the preacher talk about in a sermon?
And Kulik said, sin.
Cal, what did he say?
And Kulik said, he was against it.
So to answer your question, as far as movement modernization goes, I'm against it.
Yeah, well, this is the thing people say, well, oh, well, if they're supporting us, if they're saying the things we are and saying that they support our positions, well, what's the problem?
But they are intrinsically, inherently against everything that nationalism is about.
Their very DNA is against it, and their whole character is against it.
So it doesn't matter what they say, it's what they do that matters.
It doesn't matter what you say, it's what you are that matters.
So I think it's quite an important issue.
There are quite a lot of calls to allow these sort of people in and give them prominent positions, and I think it's entirely wrong, so I'm glad you feel the same.
For some reason, it's not just members that they sell.
We must be tolerant of our comrades who want to commit unnatural acts with other men or who happen to have noses or anything like that.
That would be bad enough, but somehow it's always leaders of this type we've got to have.
Yeah, that's not setting a good example.
Yeah.
Not setting a good example.
I mean, I'm not very big on conspiracy theory, but that whole movement modernization thing makes my head in a twitch.
I think that's a good word for it.
It's actually your words.
In the next question, I really like the way you use forbidden words.
And I was wondering, do you get more people criticizing you for this, or are people more drawn to you because of this?
I think if...
Rather than my go over that whole spritz on here with you, I would like to refer people to the January the 7th Radio Free Northwest, which they can find at northwestfront.org.
And as part of the last part of that podcast, I go into why I use certain forbidden words like nigger and faggot and kike and all that sort of stuff.
There is a reason for it, and I get into it.
It has to do with the concept of Orwellian thought control.
But as how people react...
I find, as a whole, that I get a favorable response from most people because they don't dare say nigger themselves.
Now, over here, well, I know it's bad in Britain.
You could probably get arrested for saying nigger over there, but over here, the consequences can be pretty dire.
It's not actually technically illegal to use the word, but in addition to having to watch yourself in public because...
If you say it where a nigger can hear you, you stand a chance of being violently assaulted by a crazed beast.
And number two, if you say it anywhere the wrong person hears you, you can lose your job.
And it's not just like you can go find another job.
Literally, it's one of these things.
It's kind of like an accusation of witchcraft.
In the Middle Ages, there is no defense.
Using the wrong word over here can have disastrous consequences.
And most people are terrified to use those words, which is why they make an effort to control their thoughts, which is the purpose of banning the word.
They want to make heretical thought impossible by making sure we don't even have the language in our own minds to express such thoughts.
But I find that I get a favorable reaction from most people who admit that they would not say it themselves.
Every now and then, I do get somebody who says, well, Harold, you really shouldn't use such language.
It will drive away the better type of person.
Well, I frankly never seen any sign of that.
I also noticed that the people who make that criticism are not generally really helpful to begin with.
You get a certain type of person in the movement who wants to come in and explain to you with great patience exactly how you're doing it wrong.
You really shouldn't be doing this, and you shouldn't be doing that, and oh, you have so much potential, but you just won't do it right.
You know, this is the usual Dutch uncle treatment.
I call them Dutch uncles.
I get Dutch uncle letters all the time, and sometimes they take me to task for my language.
Sometimes they take me to task for using niggerized four-letter words, and there's a little bit more point in that.
I'm kind of horrified to say that a lot of times I don't even recognize that I've used those words until I play back the recording of my Radio Free Northwest because these words have become such totally normal parts of conversation in the American English idiom these days.
I think it's fine using it...
I find, generally, the reaction is positive.
I think it's good using it with eloquence.
You're very eloquence.
So when you use them, I think it surprises people.
I don't expect people with eloquence and a grasp of the English language to use banned words, which they themselves are too frightened to use.
I think it's very positive.
I think it's a pull point to your podcasts.
Okay, enough of all this droning, droning, talk, talk, talk.
Time to wake up.
This is the Dropkick Murphys.
you you I've got just one last question here now.
We're coming near to the end.
And that was, do you have any predictions for 2016?
Well, the Chinese have a saying, may you live in interesting times.
I think, frankly, it is going to be an unholy mess.
I don't think all of this rubbish that started in 2015 is just going to stop and go away.
In Europe, the main issue of 2016 is going to be the Muslim invasion and how the people of Europe deal with it.
The problem is twofold.
Number one, the people, the white people of Europe must deal with the Muslim invaders and somehow find a way to turn them back and they must deal with their own governments and somehow find a way to get them out of office and get somebody halfway decent in there who will look out for their interests and do things like use the army of a nation for the purpose for which it was intended, which was to protect the nation.
Things like that.
I don't think anybody's actually called the military out except maybe the Hungarians in order to deal with the invasion.
So in Europe, the big thing is going to be the invasion.
I think one of the things you're going to experience is a total complete collapse of the tourist industry, which is a big source of European income, which I can very well see happening because, I mean, who the hell, if I want to see a mosque and a bazaar, I'll go to Istanbul and not Munich.
The big issue in Europe will be the invasion of 2016.
In this country, this election we're having here, I think, is going to get wild, woolly, and maybe even bloody.
I believe that it's possible that either the Democrats or the RINOs, the Republicans in name only, are going to do anything they possibly can to get rid of Donald Trump, including, if necessary, having him murdered.
It's been a long time since anybody in the political system over here has raised such.
A ruckus that the powers that be have felt it necessary to have him killed.
But I think that time might be approaching again with Trump.
Otherwise, the divisions in this country are getting really, really, really bad because you can just feel the government's control slipping.
I don't like to be a right-wing doomsayer.
I'm not one of these people who says, yes, yes, the end is nigh.
I remember in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was elected president, people were telling me, oh, that was it.
America was finished.
By 1978, they became more America because Jimmy Carter got elected.
I never ceased to be amazed at the ability of this system to right itself, to survive another year, another cycle.
It's like a slowly sinking ship, but it's level.
It's not upending from the bow to the stern.
It's just slow.
But now it's got to the point where so much water has come on board that at some point I think it's going to flip up into the bow of the stern.
It's actually going to plunge to the bottom.
But it could happen in 2016.
I never used to believe that the balloon would really go up, that the system would ever finally lose its grip and we'd be in the world of Mad Max or anything like that.
But now I am convinced it's definitely possible within my lifetime.
And the way things are going, it might even be in 2016.
If you have a sense of history, if you have a sense of the general vibe of a society, you can feel the madness creeping in and the dithering and the corruption in the government that's starting to smell.
This whole thing with Hillary Clinton and her campaign, my guess is that we're going to have Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.
She is going to do this despite the fact that she has clearly committed multiple federal felonies.
Despite the fact that she's betrayed every left-wing tenant by helping her husband rape women.
But it's just decided.
It's just clear.
It's been decided.
We're going to have Hillary.
And I think that's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way on the Democratic side because it's just so clear that they're not going to be allowed to have any alternative.
This has been decided in the back room.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee.
In the case of the Republicans, Trump is going to drive these people mad.
Yeah, I think we can be sure of that.
Do you want to just tell people where it is they can find your work before we finish?
Okay.
Our website is www.northwestfront.com.
That's all one word.
Northwestfront.org.
And you can email me, Harold Covington, at nwnet, that's n-w-n-e-t, at earthlink.net.
Fantastic.
Harold Covington, thank you very much for being on Arian Incense.
Glad to do it.
And so that's it.
Our time is up for this week's edition of Radio Free Northwest.
This program is brought to you by the Northwest Front, Post Office Box 2188.
Bremerton, Washington, 98310.
Or you can go to the party's website at www.northwestfront.org.
This is Harold Covington, and I'll see you next week.
Until then, Sasha Underban.
▲
Export Selection